GuyBee
Active member
MotD
Thinking about the argument, over the handball, some more: if the ball had ended up in the net, after hitting his hand, or hit his hand instead of the post and gone it, it would have been OK to allow the goal, then, because he was "protecting himself"? Total b0llocks!
As it was, the ball hitting his hand took the sting off it, otherwise it would have rebounded further out, instead of falling at the feet of the player who squared it for Ings to head in.
The handball in the area is biased against attackers. If it touches their hand at all, accidentally or not, it is a free kick.
Whereas with a defender, if it can be shown to be accidental or impossible to avoid, he gets away with it.
These are the current interpretation of the rules and consequently it was 100% right to disallow the goal. Only surprise is that VAR didnt call it themselves and referred it to the ref.
Even without the above, his handball directed it to Ings (?) so had a material impact.